Pathfinder Wiki talk:Naming conventions
Policy This page is made policy from the outset based on discussions on the former wiki messageboard. No online archive of this discussion exists, though several administrators have backups from the transition to wikia. Should you wish to make changes or suggestions to this policy, please raise your concerns or suggestions here. -- yoda8myhead 16:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Subpages As discussed here and here, should we revisit this part of the policy? I'm on the fence, since I see the benefit of having automatic links back to main articles. At the same time, I think the x/y format looks tacky and unprofessional—more technical than encyclopedic. Is this the standard naming convention for Wikipedia? --yoda8myhead 21:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC) :It is standard for most projects, especially with categories but also with articles. The article titles may look somewhat ... odd to some, but keep in mind that in most cases folks aren't going to come to the project looking for the subarticle, they'll search for the parent article itself. That said, it can result in article names becoming extremely lengthy, and I've never seen a need to go beyond on level of subpages; possible articles such as Katapesh/History/Age of Lost Omens would be getting a tad over the top, in my opinion. -- Heaven's Agent 03:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC) ::Ok. If it is general practice on other well-respected wikis I guess it's not that big of a deal for me. We'll just need to do some converting from existing categories and of existing pages. And we should formally decide to change the existing policy (which I believe was only slightly altered to meet our needs from Memory Alpha's policy).--yoda8myhead 05:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC) :::As discussed in Talk:Absalom/Government, the Forgotten Realms wiki (which has been and continues to be in many instances) a template for this wiki, does not use subarticles consistently but does use them. It seems from the examples presented that they use them in meta and real-world POV articles, but not for in-world articles. This might be a distinction we want to make in the addressing of this issue within our policy, or we can simply say that subarticles can exist for any article regardless of POV. I think they are helpful for meta (categories, template, user and talk namespaces etc.) articles and have no objection to using them there. But I'd rather use the FR wiki approach when doing in-world POV articles. -- yoda8myhead 21:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC) ::::I think it's important to recognize that it's good to use an in-world PoV within articles, but by their very nature the articles themselves cannot follow this guideline. The articles are the body of the project, which in turn is designed as an all-knowing index of the setting's events, places, and people. Article titles should reflect this, and the subarticle structure provides additional indexing that is recognizable by anyone that uses a computer or connects to the internet; anyone visiting the project is going to realize that the contents of the article Katapesh (city)/Districts will relate directly to the parent article Katapesh (city). Subarticles also provide a simple link back to said parent article automatically, and are a concise and accurate method of notating an article's contents. ::::Aside from the reasons for or against subarticles, I find their use to be more professional in appearance; Katapesh (city)/Districts seems much more reasonable than Districts of Katapesh (city). We could alternatively use the article name Districts of the City of Katapesh, but not only is this option lengthy but it's deceiving as well. The primary article is not City of Katapesh, due to the practice of distinguishing between articles of a same name in parenthesis. -- Heaven's Agent 02:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC) (Resetting Indent) Well , I've been giving this issue more thought over the last week and with the two-week point coming on Tuesday I believe I'm ready to make some concessions on the matter; this particular discussion has carried on long enough, much longer than this instance of talk, and it's at the point where it's hurting our growth in some areas. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we generally agree that it's a good idea to use subpages in meta and real-world POV articles, similar to what's done at the FR wiki. I would also emphasize that they are ideal for indexing, and as such should be used as appropriate within our category structure. But I'm willing to leave them out of the in-world articles. That said, we would still need to try to limit article titles as much as possible; Inhabitants of Sandpoint could be better named Sandpoint Inhabitants, while Districts of the City of Ketapesh could instead be Ketapesh (City) Districts. Even if we don't use subarticles for such pages, we should try to name them in a manner that's concise, direct, and indicates what the article itself is about first and foremost. -- Heaven's Agent 15:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC) :I think that's a fair compromise. And coming to a consensus on the issue sooner rather than later will certainly lessen the number of pages we have to hunt down and rename. So count me as onboard for the proposed policy for subpages. Keep in mind, though, that the capitalization of some of your examples breaks our "Use lower case" rule, so we should make sure that's followed when renaming things. -- yoda8myhead 21:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC) :: You're right about the capitalization, of course; using lower-case in titles is something I've always struggled with regardless of project, and I imagine it always will be. Every fiber of my being screams that titles should be capitalized, but since wikicode functions the way it does it's just something I just have to deal with. -- Heaven's Agent 00:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC) :::My gut tells me that sub-pages are a reasonable thing, but as usual I'm easily convinced. Clearly we're pretty invested in them in our meta infrastructure, so it would be silly to start ripping them out (Cite_book/* I'm looking at you). On the other hand, I can see where things could get messy if we start to use them in article titles. On the third hand, it will probably lead to some pretty wordy article names that could be more succinctly expressed as sub-pages. As it turns out, I've nothing to add but indecisive ramblings. I think what is important is to make a decision sooner rather than later. So my final word is that I agree with the latest line of discussion: "Yes for meta pages, no for articles." --Aeakett 14:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Non-canon titles The issue was raised in Talk:Tribes of the Carrion King that the name of this grouping was not canon but the issue was never resolved and I thought we might want to revisit it here. I think that under the Point of view policy, any in-world elements, such as a grouping of tribes, should use in-world terminology. Should we start to define what terms are and are not used within Golarion, or should we error on the side of caution and only use terms, especially in article titles, that are so general it won't pose a problem or are citable as used in-world? -- yoda8myhead 21:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC) :I've found it important, especially in the case of proper names and organizations, to stick with what's provided by the publishers and not utilize creative liberties in such circumstances. We have to remember that we're documenting a licensed property, and though Paizo's gone above and beyond to support our efforts it's not our place, or our right, to see or create connections that the owner of the property has decided not to utilize. For whatever reason. :I could easily see a historian in Golarion using the phrase "Tribes of the Carrion King". But even though it's important to write articles as someone within the setting, we also need to remember and respect the fact that this is someone else's creative property we're documenting here. Just as it would be improper for a Star Wars encyclopedia to come to the conclusion and publish the idea that Yoda was a redeemed Sith Lord (something I have seen, complete with a rather compelling argument in support of the concept), it's improper for us to build upon what's provided by Paizo. -- Heaven's Agent 03:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC) ::I agree with you wholeheartedly. I just wanted to raise the point here so that we can decide if this is first and foremost the consensus of current chroniclers and second if we should make this clear anywhere, either in this or another part of the wiki. --yoda8myhead 05:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC) :::I definitely agree but what I still don't understand is why "Tribes of the Carrion King" is not a canon, since it is also used in PAIZO's text (even if this is a title). What is important on the other hand is that this grouping indeed must have a name and be placed at the level of the "five packs: Carrion tribe, Duenas, Razor Fang, Sandstalkers and Spotted Hide". At a second level this "tribe" consists of a number of other tribes. To make the matter worse, some of the tribes of the Carrion King are not gnoll tribes. I have to fix somehow the Sandstalkers also because again this is the first time they are mentioned in the text. Up to now they are mentioned as gnolls of the White Canyon. --Dmeta 09:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC) "The" Another clarification we may want to add to this document is how to handle definite articles in titles. For example, The Coins and The Puddles, both districts in Absalom, are actually just "Coins" and "Puddles." The same applies to names of tribes and organizations. Articles like "a", "an," and "the" should only appear in an article title when the article is on a proper noun which specifically includes it at the start of the title. An example of this off the top of my head is "The Umbral Leaves", which is the name of an in-world document. --yoda8myhead 18:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC) :Definitely. Unfortunately, discerning when such a term is part of a name or title is sometimes easier said than done; some cases are easy to recognize, others not so much. And I don't think there's any way to handle such instances other than on a case by case basis. It's going to result in a little more work on the matter than I'd like to see, but it's probably unavoidable. -- Heaven's Agent 18:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Proposed Update: Use Native Names Article names should reflect the native or true name of the subject. For example, "Scanderig" not "Forgefiend". If a common or colloquial name for the subject exists, a redirect to the main article should be created ("Forgefiend" -> "Scanderig", using the previous example). —aeakett 22:52, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :This change has been waiting for a while. Since this proposal reflects how we do things already, consider this the last call for comments before the change goes live. —aeakett 17:37, March 18, 2010 (UTC) ::Since there was no further discussion, I've made this change —aeakett 16:37, March 25, 2010 (UTC) Proposed Update: Special Characters Article names should strive to be as accurate as possible. To that end, article names should include the correct characters, without substitutions. For example, "China Miéville", not "China Mieville". For the sake of easy typing, a redirect using an appropriate substitute character should be created ("China Mieville" -> "China Miéville", using the previous example). In some cases, using a "more correct" character actually causes problems without providing additional meaning. For example, using "’" instead of the more easily typable "'". —aeakett 22:52, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :This change has been waiting for a while. Since this proposal reflects a previous discussion (that we had somewhere... I whish I could remember where) that reached consensus, consider this the last call for comments before the change goes live. —aeakett 17:37, March 18, 2010 (UTC) ::Here's the link for the discussion In the Forum -- Cpt kirstov 21:07, March 18, 2010 (UTC) ::Since there was no further discussion, and since there was previous consensus, I've made this change —aeakett 16:37, March 25, 2010 (UTC)